A preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before a corruption FIR, but Section 17 authorization is.

The petitioner, an accused in Crime No. 5/2024 registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta for an offence under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sought to quash the FIR and source report.

He contended that no preliminary enquiry had been conducted before registration and challenged the basis for assessing his assets, including the statement showing nil assets at the beginning of the check period.

He also stated that certain assets were acquired through his father-in-law, a landowner said to possess over 200 acres.

The State relied on an order made under Section 17 of the Act and submitted that the matter warranted investigation.

1. Whether the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR rendered the FIR liable to be quashed.

2. Whether the FIR was invalid for want of an order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Whether the petitioner’s contentions concerning the source and ownership of assets justified quashing the FIR at this stage.

The Court considered Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), and 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

It held that a preliminary enquiry before registration of an FIR is a rule of prudence, not a mandatory statutory requirement; accordingly, its absence does not by itself invalidate an FIR.

By contrast, an order under Section 17 is a statutory requirement, and registration without such an order is per se illegal.

The Court found that an order under Section 17 had been passed by the Superintendent of Police, satisfying the statutory requirement.

Although no preliminary enquiry had been held, that omission did not warrant quashing the FIR because such an enquiry was not mandatory.

The assets identified by the investigating agency were alleged to be disproportionate to the petitioner’s known sources of income by more than 99%, and the Court considered investigation necessary.

The petitioner’s explanation concerning his father-in-law’s landholding and the acquisition of assets was a matter to be supported by documentary evidence and presented to the investigating agency for consideration.

The Court directed that the investigation be completed and an appropriate report filed on or before 31 March 2027.

The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation.